No True Scotsmen: The moving goal post fallacy

Mel: All Scotsmen love Haggis
Ethan: My uncle doesn't like Haggis, and he is Scottish
Mel: Well, all true Scotsmen love Haggis

The problem in our politically correct world is the infatuation with this kind of thinking. When the term of dispute can be redefined in an ad-hoc manner, then we might as well be standing on political and ethical quick sand. When a Muslim terrorist says 'I want to blow up the airplane because Allah commands it', I tend to believe him. Liberals will tell us that he is confused, his theology is unrefined, he is not a true 'Scotsman'. They will tell us that the Islamist extremist concerns are political in nature, not religious, and that if he just had some of the nice things that we in the West have he wouldn't be so upset. I smell bullshit... I can think of only one human-created method of thought that allows for the existence pious hatred like we see in Muslim terrorists: faith. Yet we are called intolerant bigots for denouncing faith, by both the conservatives (who are faithful) and the liberals (who are pussies).

No society or individual has ever suffered for an overabundance of reason. Nobody has ever said, "Boy, that Mr. Bates sure isn't doing himself any good by thinking so logically!". Yet what system of thought convinces people its a good idea to murder abortion doctors, or inhibit free speech? What virtue, prized above all others in our society turns off the '1 + 1 = 2' section of our brains? Thats right.

Yap, yap, yap. Culture that knows too much

A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.- Nature, 8 Nov 1906

The one thing that keeps me motivated to keep learning is the knowledge that I am wrong, about something, most likely many-many things, and this bothers me. All of the things I enjoy ranting about I've probably believe at some point or another, I rant as a way of laughing at myself and how stupid my previously held opinions are in the light of better evidence. A healthy dose of irreverence is, in my opinion, one of the only guarantors against insanity. Cranks, both liberal and conservative, are notable by their complete lack of humor concerning the opinions they hold dear. To them their ideas are dead serious, true, and cannot be challenged or laughed at. 'Piety' is the enemy of free thought and reason, no idea should be above reproach.
Unfortunately we live in a society which encourages us all to be cranks and blowhards. It is not fashionable to admit you don't know the answer to a given question or situation; rather it is thought preferable to make shit up rather than plead ignorance. This bothers me greatly, not because I think I'm better than anyone else, but because I know how ignorant I really, truly am. It bothers me when other people claim to know things that they clearly don't. Being able to speak on a topic does not mean you know anything about it; a fact I try and remind myself of constantly. Its far too easy to open my yapper and spout sophistry when really the best thing to do is hold back.

I suppose a careful utilization of 'tact' is important when talking with cranks. They know they're right, without a shadow of a doubt. Think about how fervent and emotional the anti-vac movement is, the creationists, or 911 truthers. to be continued...

Just let the Gays get Married

Just let the gays get married

Once upon a time in a country called America the wild buffalo roamed freely. Eagles soared across the vast expanses of quiet mountainsides, and trout swam in bubbling brooks! Wheat and cotton grew in the fields and all was well; black people were considered subhuman property and women were subjugates of their husbands without legal equality or rights. Oh those were good times, no immoral MTV, gayness hadn’t been invented yet, and people understood what it meant to put in a hard days work.

Then something happened in that most wonderful nation. War and hardship struck and many young men lost their lives fighting for both noble and corrupt causes. Ideas, long considered taboo were questioned in a new light and change began to occur, the moral zeitgeist began to shift. We don’t really know why, but the institutions of religion and tradition were powerless to stop them; and like a phoenix, from those rancid ashes arose great leaders who championed the causes of suffrage and equality. Slowly, the walls of patriarchy and racism were chipped away. The moral spirit of the age shifted, in spite of religious fervor, a shift born from the reasoned proposition that all men and women deserve equal rights afforded under the law. Why? Not because god said so, but because a democratic consensus decided that this type of society, one in which we all enjoy equal rights, would best benefit the majority of all people in accordance with the principals of liberty and happiness.

However despite all our gains we are once again faced with that bitter old foe which would seek to limit individual freedom based upon the what some ancient shepherds and cave dwellers wrote on scrolls thousands of years ago. Gay people would like the legal right to get married in this great land. Nothing more, they simply want the ability to declare their love for each other just like any heterosexual couple can, yet they are facing stiff opposition from the religious fundamentalists who would seek to deny them this fundamental right. Our president elect, a democrat who could lend powerful support to this struggle has cowardly turned from the issue in order to appease the fundamentalist zealots. Why is this issue so contentious? The religious fundamentalists believe their god to be manically obsessed with what humans privately do in their own bedrooms, so much so that if gay marriage would be allowed it would somehow undermine straight marriage. Of course none of their arguments make any sense, religiously based arguments never do, they are always spawned from that ancient part of our brain that is still afraid of the dark, that still fears death, and would long to adopt any comforting idea no matter if it matches reality or not. However, as our species progresses we slowly shed the metaphorical skin of our past as it becomes no longer useful, and so too will we inevitably lose these old fears and prejudices that have haunted us and caused so much suffering for so long.

If history stays consistent then no liberty will long be denied by those who would have us remain in the dark. A new sun (and rainbow) will rise for our gay brethren in their struggle for equality soon enough.

Our future depends on it

In the wake of Sarah Palins nomination to the GOP ticket I’ve been thinking a lot about the state of our country’s mindset. Let me explain, hopefully it’ll all connect together in the end.

Over the past decade America has seen a steady decline in the number of science PhDs we are graduating. This shift in our educational priorities is mirrored by a sharp rise in science PhDs graduating in Asia, especially in China. I see the results of this every day at my office desk; Americans are producing less and less scientific research while the rest of the world is producing more. The effects of this are both immediate and long-standing. In the immediate future America loses its position of scientific prowess; the best research occurs elsewhere, university prowess shifts to the east (and west) and thus the world’s best and brightest seek better places. The economic impact from losing the industrial innovation this research produces is clear, but continues into other spheres as well.

A 2006 NSF study found that just 23% of Americans could explain what it means to engage in a scientific study. John Miller of Michigan State University has been tracking science literacy in America for the past 20 years and recently published a study which states that a basic level of science literacy in this country is at 28% and falling each year. Most Americans are completely confused about the very basic principals of empirical evidence, composing a hypothesis, and proposing a theory. This bothers me greatly because this process of thinking is essential to the process of composing coherent beliefs about the world we live in. If you don’t understand what constitutes evidence, and why, then you are not equipped to engage a world that is increasingly dependent upon scientific progress.

In philosophy we call this type of thinking ‘reason’. Reason, it appears, is fighting a losing battle against the forces of credulity, fear, and superstition. This is where Sarah Palin ties in.

Sarah Palin, the woman whom the republicans believe is fit to rule the most powerful country on earth believes the earth is 6,000 years old. To be clear, this is no minor mistake. Current scientific estimates, corroborated by mutually agreeing standards of measurement peg the earth’s age at 4-5 billion years old. The magnitude of Palin’s disconnect reality is comparable to stating the distance between New York and San Francisco is 200 feet. This is no minor mistake.

As a country, as a world, we can no longer afford to elect officials with minds that belong in the Dark Ages; we simply cannot afford it. Religious belief, if it must exist, has to be a private affair. Our world is one of nuclear weapons, fanatical religion, and environmental disasters. We cannot damn our tumultuous future even further by placing it into the hands of someone who believes that hurricanes are an angry god’s punishment. We need leaders who are able to engage the world as it really is, not as they wish it to be. Faith, in a world of very real crisis, is an anchor that will pull our collective future to the depths of misery. History bears the scars of leaders who governed their people from a position of wanting reality to be a certain way rather than looking at the evidence and making prudent decisions. I dearly hope the citizens of this country will question our leaders with skeptical rigor. We can’t afford not to.

Tuesday Thought

Consider the following Old Testament claims believed by fundamentalists Christians, Jews, and Muslims:

• Woman was created from a rib torn from man's side.
• Within the animal kingdom there was no animal death before Eve ate the apple.
• People lived up to 1,000 years of age.
• There was no rain before Noah's Ark and the flood.
• Noah fitted hundreds of millions of species from every corner of the globe on a boat, and then redistributed them after a global flood.

Think about these points for a moment and then ponder that if people can believe ideas as outlandish as these then how can they possibly discount the ideas in any other religion old or new?

To believe that no animals died (or therefore ate anything) originally, or that humans lived for 1,000 years is to exhibit a disconnect with reality so great that if the belief was not shared amongst millions we would surely call such believers mentally disabled. Ironically, if enough people believe an insane idea we call their conviction religion, whereas if the group of believers is small enough we lock them up.

On a political and social level this serves as a reminder that secular society must be defended, continually, from those who would gleefully pull us back into the dark ages of fear and oppression.

Shifting Zeitgeist

Creationist critics get their comeuppance
Richard Lenski's 20 year experiement of maintaining E Coli cultures and tracking their evolution has creationists bumbling in their attempts to remove their feet from their mouths.

Is Dobson's Obama Hit Backfiring?
It is so nice to see that people, even Christians, are no longer stomaching James Dobson's intolerance and bigotry.

Pew Study finds 70% of Americans believe in more than one path to Salvation
While belief in salvation certainley should take its place in the archives of ancient beliefs our species has entertained, I will admit that this study is undeniably progress. I see this is as part of the slow errosion of fundamentalism, a stepping stone on the path to clear thinking.